Lee Bravestone, Matthew D. Hammond, Amy Muise, Emily J. Cross
{"title":"“It Wasn’t Meant for Gays”: Lesbian Women’s and Gay Men’s Reactions to the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory","authors":"Lee Bravestone, Matthew D. Hammond, Amy Muise, Emily J. Cross","doi":"10.1007/s11199-024-01528-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Researchers can unintentionally reinforce societal prejudice against minoritized populations through the false assumption that psychological measurements are generalizable across identities. Recently, researchers have posited that gender and sexually diverse (GSD) people could feel excluded or confused by the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) due to its overtly heteronormative statements like “A man is incomplete without the love of a woman.” Yet, the ASI is used for indexing the endorsement of sexism in GSD samples and across diverse populations. An ideal test of these experiences is to directly consult GSD participants for their reactions. In the current study, we report a reflexive thematic analysis of lesbian women and gay men’s (<i>N</i> = 744) feedback immediately after completing the ASI. Four themes characterized participants’ reactions to the ASI: <i>Exclusion</i>: Heteronormative items erase diverse genders and sexualities, <i>Confusion</i>: Inability to meaningfully respond due to heteronormativity, <i>Hope</i>: Exclusion understood as a necessary sacrifice toward progress, and <i>Distress</i>: Exclusion inflicts distress by reflecting societal prejudice. The themes captured the experience that many participants found heteronormative assumptions salient in the ASI and had varied reactions to the heteronormativity. Our results extend prior research that questions the generalizability of results drawn from the ASI, especially studies including GSD participants. We discuss the implications of the continued use of the ASI and encourage researchers to critically evaluate underlying theories and assumptions to ensure participants can engage with measures as intended.</p>","PeriodicalId":48425,"journal":{"name":"Sex Roles","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sex Roles","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01528-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Researchers can unintentionally reinforce societal prejudice against minoritized populations through the false assumption that psychological measurements are generalizable across identities. Recently, researchers have posited that gender and sexually diverse (GSD) people could feel excluded or confused by the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) due to its overtly heteronormative statements like “A man is incomplete without the love of a woman.” Yet, the ASI is used for indexing the endorsement of sexism in GSD samples and across diverse populations. An ideal test of these experiences is to directly consult GSD participants for their reactions. In the current study, we report a reflexive thematic analysis of lesbian women and gay men’s (N = 744) feedback immediately after completing the ASI. Four themes characterized participants’ reactions to the ASI: Exclusion: Heteronormative items erase diverse genders and sexualities, Confusion: Inability to meaningfully respond due to heteronormativity, Hope: Exclusion understood as a necessary sacrifice toward progress, and Distress: Exclusion inflicts distress by reflecting societal prejudice. The themes captured the experience that many participants found heteronormative assumptions salient in the ASI and had varied reactions to the heteronormativity. Our results extend prior research that questions the generalizability of results drawn from the ASI, especially studies including GSD participants. We discuss the implications of the continued use of the ASI and encourage researchers to critically evaluate underlying theories and assumptions to ensure participants can engage with measures as intended.
研究人员可能会通过错误的假设,认为心理测量结果可以在不同身份间通用,从而无意中强化社会对少数群体的偏见。最近,研究人员提出,性别和性取向多元化(GSD)人群可能会因矛盾性别歧视量表(ASI)中诸如 "没有女人的爱,男人是不完整的 "等明显的异性恋规范语句而感到被排斥或困惑。然而,ASI 是用来衡量 GSD 样本和不同人群对性别歧视认可程度的指标。检验这些经验的理想方法是直接咨询 GSD 参与者的反应。在本研究中,我们报告了对女同性恋和男同性恋(人数 = 744)在完成 ASI 后的反馈进行的反思性主题分析。参与者对 ASI 的反应有四个主题:排斥:异性恋项目抹杀了不同的性别和性取向;困惑:困惑:由于异性恋而无法做出有意义的回应;希望:将排斥理解为进步的必要牺牲;以及痛苦:苦恼:排斥反映了社会偏见,造成苦恼。这些主题捕捉到了这样一种体验,即许多参与者发现 ASI 中突出的异性恋假设,并对异性恋有不同的反应。我们的研究结果扩展了之前的研究,这些研究对从 ASI 中得出的结果的普遍性提出了质疑,尤其是包括 GSD 参与者在内的研究。我们讨论了继续使用 ASI 的意义,并鼓励研究人员对基本理论和假设进行批判性评估,以确保参与者能够按照预期参与测量。
期刊介绍:
Sex Roles: A Journal of Research is a global, multidisciplinary, scholarly, social and behavioral science journal with a feminist perspective. It publishes original research reports as well as original theoretical papers and conceptual review articles that explore how gender organizes people’s lives and their surrounding worlds, including gender identities, belief systems, representations, interactions, relations, organizations, institutions, and statuses. The range of topics covered is broad and dynamic, including but not limited to the study of gendered attitudes, stereotyping, and sexism; gendered contexts, culture, and power; the intersections of gender with race, class, sexual orientation, age, and other statuses and identities; body image; violence; gender (including masculinities) and feminist identities; human sexuality; communication studies; work and organizations; gendered development across the life span or life course; mental, physical, and reproductive health and health care; sports; interpersonal relationships and attraction; activism and social change; economic, political, and legal inequities; and methodological challenges and innovations in doing gender research.